Signs of
The Times gives you current data and also a compass to orient
yourself in our world where disinformation reigns....

Perhaps, if only to activate your "awareness", you
may like to have a look at my "Bogdanov
affair" pages. And from there just "follow the
rabbit"....

A physicist, that does not want to be " associated"
with Rodrigues wrote to me today (Feb. 9, 2004):

"Thanks for everything you do. You are right,
anyway (but I believe AIAS to be unusful for getting money too!)."

On the other hand Evans writes about Rodrigues:

"I anticipate that [Waldyr] Rodrigues would attack
me viciously with e mail to senior staff in the University of
Washington if he knew that I was being considered for a professorship
there. He has probably already attacked me in e mails to "Scientific
American" editors in an attempt to block and censor AIAS
work. Judging by his psychotic past conduct, the knowledge that
I was being considerd for a professorship and Nobel Prize would
really sent him nuts with envy. So I would like to make that
University aware of the activities of these less than enlightened
gentlemen. Phil Karn, Timoth Harwood and one other were sent
terms of violation letters byYahoo last summer and their groups
closed down. Several thousand viciously defammatory notices
were removed from these and other Yahoo groups who were attacking
Lt. Col. Thomas Bearden (US Army retired). They attacked me
when I came to Bearden's defence, and I defeated them in a pitched
battle, with some help from senior AIAS colleagues. "

and then Evans adds (as of Feb. 7, 2004) :

"In Waldyr's case, use the Goebbels Theroem,
repeat a lie often enough .................".

Probably Tom Bearden shares some of Evans' "philosophy",
otherwise they would not be in the the same "AIAS".

I. Introduction

The purpose of writing these notes and making them
available through the Web is threefold:

1) I want to share with the Reader my discomfort and
dissatisfaction with many of the public statements of Tom Bearden
and Richard Hoagland.

2) At the same time, I want to be constructive, not just destructive,
and thus to share with my Reader some of the technical knowledge
that I have (and also some of my dreams).

3) I also want to get as much feed-back as possible concerning
the problems and questions discussed in these notes.

For now it may be enough to say this: I am a theoretical physicist,
with a lot of experience, quite a number of publications in respected,
mainstream physics journals, and who, at the same time, tries to
be as open minded as possible while still guarding myself against
making claims and statements that I would not be able to defend
in front of any "scientific committee".

I am a scientist. But there are many scientists, as you know.
All kinds of them.... So, let me tell you what are my areas of expertise.

My most recent domain is quantum theory, its foundations, its paradoxes,
its philosophical consequences. Many of my recent papers deal with
these subjects in one way or another.

Quantum theory, as such has little to do with the ideas of Bearden
and Hoagland which I want to discuss on this pages. Therefore I
need to point out another area of my experience as a physicist:
experience with mathematical theories of space and time, hyperdimensional
physics, Riemannian geometry, geometrical theories of gravity and
electromagnetism, Kaluza-Klein theories of extra dimensions, spinor
structures, quaternions etc. All of this will be very useful when
discussing some of the claims of Bearden and Hoagland, as well as
other claims so often propagated in the "new Age" literature.
If you like, you can go to Amazon.com, search for "Jadczyk"
and order my textbook "Riemannian Geometry Fiber Bundles
Kaluza-Klein Theories and All That" , written together
with Robert Coquereax
- it is only $53, and it will tell you about the math involved in
studies of Hyperdimensional Physics. Or you can order "Quantum
Future : From Volta and Como to the Present and Beyond : Proceedings
of the Xth Max Born Symposium" (Held in Przesieka, Poland,
24-27 September 1997) - but this one is conference proceedings and
costs $73!

Anyhow, joking aside, I am not going to cheat you. I am going to
be as straightforward here as I possibly can be. There is however
one thing that I do need to draw your attention to: experts do no
not always agree! In fact experts often vigorously discuss problems
that are never questioned in textbooks used in our high schools
and colleges and universities.

Bertrand Russel once remarked that whenever experts disagree on
a given subject, layman would do better by abstaining from a definite
judgement. This is, however, only one of his famous sayings. There
is a complementary one which needs to be taken into account as well:
"Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken."

I want to discuss here about Hoagland's version of "Hyperdimensional
Physics" - that is, I want to write about what I think of his
ideas, whether I can make any sense of what he is talking about,
and also how his ideas relate to my own ideas and the ideas of other
qualified experts.

While reading Hoagland it is clear that he is under the influence
of certain public disclosures of Tom Bearden. It is also rather
apparent that Bearden knows quite a bit of physics and math, while
it seems that, for Hoagland it is only a hobby. In trying to speak
constructively, I will say that it is rather clear to me that Tom
Bearden, more often than not, sends us a coded message that sometimes
needs to be read backward. On the other hand, Hoagland relies mainly
on his intuition - which sometimes leads even the most successful
prophets astray.

I will write this story as a series of pieces that
will continue for while. One day I will will write more, another
day I will write less, still another day I will replace my previous
piece by a revised version and so on. And so I will be updating
this story day by day ... until the day will come when the story
will stop, because there will be another strong urge - to do something
else. You see, it is a difficult decision... There is always the
problem of choosing: should I spend the little time that I have
discussing ideas of other people? Would it not be better for me
to spend this time developing my own ideas? But, somehow, in this
particular case, I feel that discussing, if only initiating the
discussion, of some of the ideas of Hoagland and Bearden will do
only good - to me and to my my readers. Thus let me start.

'Unknown to most current physicists and students of science (if
not the general media and public), the beginnings of modern physics
launched over 100 years ago by the so-called "giants" -- Helmholtz,
Lord Kelvin, Faraday, Maxwell and many others -- laid a full and
rich tradition in this currently little-known field: the open,
heatedly debated scientific and philosophical premise that three-dimensional
reality is only a subset of a series of higher, hyperspatial,
additional dimensions, which control not only the physics of our
very existence, from stars to galaxies to life itself ... but
potentially, through time-variable changes in its foundations.'

I don't know where Hoagland got the impression that the idea of
additional dimensions is unknown to most modern day physicists.
My own experience is quite different.

There are chapters in classical textbooks on gravity dealing with
Kaluza-Klein theories. Every student of physics who even casually
searches through the physics journals will easily find hundreds
of papers on dimensional reduction, spontaneous compactification
and Kaluza-Klein theories.

Go to http://xxx.lanl.gov and
search for the term "Kaluza" in the abstracts, and you
will be returned (at the time of writing this piece) 368 documents,
which you can download to your computer, print and study. It starts
with hep-ph/9908505: "Asymmetrical large extra dimensions"
by Joseph Lykken, Satyanarayan Nandi. The next document is hep-ph/9908469:
"Gravitational Lensing and Extra Dimensions" by Xiao-Gang
He, Girish C. Joshi, Bruce H.J. McKellar, the next document is hep-ph/9908462:
"Unified Models at Intermediate Energy Scales and Kaluza-Klein
Excitations" by G.K. Leontaris (CERN, Ioannina Un.), N.D. Tracas
(NTUA, Athens) etc. etc.

Thus Hoagland's claim that the subject is unknown to most current
physicists is, at least, not quite adequate. In fact, it is downright
misleading. What is also inadequate, if not also complete disinformation,
is connecting the names of Helmholz, Kelvin, Faraday and Maxwell
to this subject. I do not know even one contribution of any of the
the above authors that is relevant or significant to the subject...

Hoagland continues:

'Oliver Heaviside, described by Scientific American (Sept. 1950)
as "self-taught and ... never connected with any university ...
had [however] a remarkable and inexplicable ability (which was
possessed also by Newton and Laplace...) to arrive at mathematical
results of considerable complexity without going through any conscious
process of proof ...

" According to other observers, Heaviside actually felt that
Maxwell's use of quaternions and their description of the "potentials"
of space was "... mystical, and should be murdered from the theory
..." which -- by drastically editing Maxwell's original work after
the latter's untimely death (from cancer), excising the scalar
component of the quaternions and eliminating the hyperspatial
characteristics of the directional (vector) components -- Oliver
Heaviside effectively accomplished this singlehanded.

This means, of course, that the four surviving "classic" Maxwell's
Equations -- which appear in every electrical and physics text
the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical
and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television
to computer science, if not inclusive of every "hard" science
from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic
radiative processes -- never appeared in any original Maxwell'
paper or treatise! They are, in fact-- "Heaviside's equations!"
'

Now, here Hoagland evidently follows previous disclosures by Tom
Beardean who wrote extensively about the subject of Maxwell,
quaternions and the regrettable ignorance of contemporary physicists
and electrical engineers.

Is this really the case? Is anything being hidden from us?

To answer this question I will use pieces of discussion on the
subject that was going on "newphysics" mailing list.